Background information:For the past half century, one of the primary tools for addressing racial, ethnic and gender inequality has been “affirmative action” policies. First used in the early 1960s, the term affirmative action now refers to a complex set of policies created by different branches of state and local government intended to improve opportunities for minorities and women giving them preference in admissions to higher education, government and private sector employment, and government contracts. Directions: Review the timeline below and discuss the questions that follow in your small groups. Early History of Affirmative Action Policies in Employment and Contracting 1940s—President Franklin Roosevelt created the President’s Committee on Fair Employment Practice (FEPC) to investigate allegations of discrimination in federal employment and contracting. This was the first federal agency since the post-Civil War Reconstruction that was created solely to address problems of minorities. Without funding and little authority, the agency was more symbolic than effective. 1960s—President John Kennedy becomes the first president to sign an executive order requiring federal agencies and their private contractors take “affirmative action” to ensure that employment and contracting were not racial discriminatory. However, the intent was not to explicitly consider race in employment decisions. The point was to make sure minorities were not being excluded for reasons unrelated to job performance. 1960s—President Lyndon Johnson pushes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, creating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was the first agency authorized by Congress to promote equal opportunity and continues its work today. More significant was the program’s incentive plan in which contractors and employers could include in their bid the number of minority employees it would hire if given the contract. Though not intended to be a quota system, it was used by employers to get an advantage on the competition. 1970s—President Nixon directs government agencies to provide potential contractors with information about the percentages of minorities in each local labor market. While not required, those contractors who proposed hiring certain numbers of minorities in their bids were given an advantage in the bidding process. These policies were extended to state and local governments and marked the beginning of the debate over the use of numerical goals and quotas. 1971—Griggs v. Duke Power Company The Supreme Court considers whether the federal regulations are consistent with the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause. The Duke Power Company required its workers have a high school diploma and/or pass an intelligence test for manual jobs like shoveling coal. The Supreme Court ruled that because there was no evidence a diploma or test was related to the performance of manual labor, the practice was illegal. The ruling is significant because it meant that even indirect or unintentional discrimination was illegal. Push Back Against Race-Based Affirmative Action
1978—Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Allan Bakke, a white man, had been rejected from admission to the University of California Medical School. The school had reserved sixteen places in each entering class for “qualified” minorities, as part of the university’s affirmative action program. Bakke’s qualifications exceeded the all minority students admitted in the two times he was rejected. The 5-4 court ruling was almost a split. Four justices contended that any racial quota system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fifth justice, Lewis Powell, contended that rigid use of racial quotas, like those used by the school, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the Court also agreed that attracting a diverse student body was an important goal and served a compelling interest. The Court went on to outline an admission process it deemed permissible stating that race could be considered as one among many factors to tip the balance in favor of an applicant, just not the only factor. 1980s—President Ronald Reagan was opposed to programs such as affirmative action which favored minorities in jobs, education, and awarding government contracts. Conservative politicians like Reagan felt it amounted to reverse discrimination by granting minority groups special advantages that were denied the majority of citizens. The administration stopped requiring contactors doing business with the federal government to comply with affirmative action programs. Reagan’s justice department supported a number of legal challenges to affirmative action and cut back efforts to enforce job discrimination and fair housing laws as well as legal challenges to court-ordered school bussing. 1996—Votes in California approved proposition 209, a state constitutional amendment that bend affirmative action involving minorities and women in state employment, contracting and university admissions. Similar legislation was also proposed in 22 other states, though none passed new legislation. Several states have limited affirmative action through referenda and executive orders. 2003—the Supreme Court looked at two cases against the University of Michigan, Gratz v. Bollinger which focused on the university’s undergraduate admissions, and Grutter v. Bollinger which focused on the university’s law school admissions. (Bollinger was the university’s president at the time.) The majority on the Court agreed that trying to attain a diverse student body was a compelling, but felt the university’s undergraduate admissions system did more than tip the balance because it gave too many points for being an a minority. For this reason, the Court deemed it unconstitutional. The admissions process for the law school considered the “whole person” and didn’t seem to give an advantage to any one group, thus the Court upheld the school’s policy. 2006—In two cases, Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, the Supreme Court a bitterly divided Court ruled that integration programs in Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky which tried to maintain diversity in schools by considering race are unconstitutional. November, 2008—Nebraska and Colorado citizens vote on ballot measures banning affirmative action. The ban narrowly passes in Nebraska, but Colorado voters narrowly rejected their ban.
[[file://10.153.32.6/Staff/william.shulman/My Documents/Class Material on H Drive/AP US Government/Unit 5_Civil Rights and Civil Liberties/Civil Rights/Affirmative Action_history.doc#_ftnref1|[1]]] Adopted from Affirmative Action: Race or Class? A white paper by Douglas N. Harris from the University of Wisconsin at Madison (with assistance from Carl Frederick). March 16, 2009
Directions: Review the timeline below and discuss the questions that follow in your small groups.
Early History of Affirmative Action Policies in Employment and Contracting
1940s—President Franklin Roosevelt created the President’s Committee on Fair Employment Practice (FEPC) to investigate allegations of discrimination in federal employment and contracting. This was the first federal agency since the post-Civil War Reconstruction that was created solely to address problems of minorities. Without funding and little authority, the agency was more symbolic than effective.
1960s—President John Kennedy becomes the first president to sign an executive order requiring federal agencies and their private contractors take “affirmative action” to ensure that employment and contracting were not racial discriminatory. However, the intent was not to explicitly consider race in employment decisions. The point was to make sure minorities were not being excluded for reasons unrelated to job performance.
1960s—President Lyndon Johnson pushes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, creating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was the first agency authorized by Congress to promote equal opportunity and continues its work today. More significant was the program’s incentive plan in which contractors and employers could include in their bid the number of minority employees it would hire if given the contract. Though not intended to be a quota system, it was used by employers to get an advantage on the competition.
1970s—President Nixon directs government agencies to provide potential contractors with information about the percentages of minorities in each local labor market. While not required, those contractors who proposed hiring certain numbers of minorities in their bids were given an advantage in the bidding process. These policies were extended to state and local governments and marked the beginning of the debate over the use of numerical goals and quotas.
1971—Griggs v. Duke Power Company The Supreme Court considers whether the federal regulations are consistent with the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause. The Duke Power Company required its workers have a high school diploma and/or pass an intelligence test for manual jobs like shoveling coal. The Supreme Court ruled that because there was no evidence a diploma or test was related to the performance of manual labor, the practice was illegal. The ruling is significant because it meant that even indirect or unintentional discrimination was illegal.
Push Back Against Race-Based Affirmative Action
1978—Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Allan Bakke, a white man, had been rejected from admission to the University of California Medical School. The school had reserved sixteen places in each entering class for “qualified” minorities, as part of the university’s affirmative action program. Bakke’s qualifications exceeded the all minority students admitted in the two times he was rejected. The 5-4 court ruling was almost a split. Four justices contended that any racial quota system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fifth justice, Lewis Powell, contended that rigid use of racial quotas, like those used by the school, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the Court also agreed that attracting a diverse student body was an important goal and served a compelling interest. The Court went on to outline an admission process it deemed permissible stating that race could be considered as one among many factors to tip the balance in favor of an applicant, just not the only factor.
1980s—President Ronald Reagan was opposed to programs such as affirmative action which favored minorities in jobs, education, and awarding government contracts. Conservative politicians like Reagan felt it amounted to reverse discrimination by granting minority groups special advantages that were denied the majority of citizens. The administration stopped requiring contactors doing business with the federal government to comply with affirmative action programs. Reagan’s justice department supported a number of legal challenges to affirmative action and cut back efforts to enforce job discrimination and fair housing laws as well as legal challenges to court-ordered school bussing.
1996—Votes in California approved proposition 209, a state constitutional amendment that bend affirmative action involving minorities and women in state employment, contracting and university admissions. Similar legislation was also proposed in 22 other states, though none passed new legislation. Several states have limited affirmative action through referenda and executive orders.
2003—the Supreme Court looked at two cases against the University of Michigan, Gratz v. Bollinger which focused on the university’s undergraduate admissions, and Grutter v. Bollinger which focused on the university’s law school admissions. (Bollinger was the university’s president at the time.) The majority on the Court agreed that trying to attain a diverse student body was a compelling, but felt the university’s undergraduate admissions system did more than tip the balance because it gave too many points for being an a minority. For this reason, the Court deemed it unconstitutional. The admissions process for the law school considered the “whole person” and didn’t seem to give an advantage to any one group, thus the Court upheld the school’s policy.
2006—In two cases, Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, the Supreme Court a bitterly divided Court ruled that integration programs in Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky which tried to maintain diversity in schools by considering race are unconstitutional.
November, 2008—Nebraska and Colorado citizens vote on ballot measures banning affirmative action. The ban narrowly passes in Nebraska, but Colorado voters narrowly rejected their ban.
[[file://10.153.32.6/Staff/william.shulman/My Documents/Class Material on H Drive/AP US Government/Unit 5_Civil Rights and Civil Liberties/Civil Rights/Affirmative Action_history.doc#_ftnref1|[1]]] Adopted from Affirmative Action: Race or Class? A white paper by Douglas N. Harris from the University of Wisconsin at Madison (with assistance from Carl Frederick). March 16, 2009